Senate debates

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Matters of Public Importance

Asylum Seekers

4:17 pm

Photo of Mark FurnerMark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

and it is a great opportunity to understand what our men and women have concerns about in turning boats back. In fact, Senator Humphries, on that same trip I was on, one of your opposition lower house members asked, quite rightly, whether it would work. The response he got was, 'No, it won't work, because we know from history that it's unsafe.'

The report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers explained some of the issues associated with it when you were in government. There were about 12 interceptions, and eight of those occasions could be termed 'miserable excuses for a success'. On four of those eight occasions, asylum-seeker boats were successfully intercepted and escorted or towed back to international waters, in the direction of Indonesian territorial waters. Although successful, those four operations included the following incidents: on two occasions, Royal Australian Navy personnel had to undertake repairs to the boat engines in order to be able to turn back those boats; and, on the other two occasions, asylum seekers jumped overboard. Is that the situation you want, where our Royal Australian Navy personnel have to repair the engines of boats that have been damaged as a result of these asylum seekers being so desperate to be rescued, to come to our shores, that they then—the second point made in the panel report—jump overboard? Let us not forget the unfortunate situation that occurred in Darwin, where asylum seekers set fire to boats. That is the sort of desperate thing that occurs when you send that message, 'Let's turn the boats back.' It does not work.

On the other four occasions out of the eight interceptions, either the boats became unseaworthy at some point during the interception or turn-back operation, or non-compliant behaviour by the asylum seekers made the attempt unsustainable, and those asylum seekers ended up at Christmas Island anyway. That is the evidence from the past on this policy of turning boats back—your three planks of policy. It just does not work. When are you going to get it? I do not think you will ever get it.

Then you went to temporary protection visas. Let us have a look at what happened. Let us look at the truth and shine a light on what you guys failed to do. You made out that TPVs were this golden way to stop people coming here. Well, they did not stop people coming here. They did not stop the boats; they did not turn them around. The number of women and children getting onto boats actually increased when you introduced TPVs, and the restrictions that these visas imposed on asylum seekers were unjust and hindered their ability to carry out normal lives. In fact, former immigration minister Chris Evans said in 2008:

Under the unjust regime set up by the previous government, unauthorised arrivals who were owed protection under Australia’s international obligations were only eligible for TPVs in the first instance.

It meant that refugees had no travel rights, reduced access to refugee settlement services such as English language programs, employment and income assistance, and could not be reunited with other family members.

Minister Evans also said:

The Temporary Protection visa was one of the worst aspects of the Howard government’s punitive treatment of refugees, many of whom had suffered enormously before fleeing to Australia.

This is clear evidence that the TPV arrangements did nothing to prevent unauthorised boat arrivals. In fact, illegal arrival numbers increased not long after the regime was introduced. Furthermore, if you want to know what happened as a result, as Peter van Onselen said in the Australian, the paper that those opposite often rely on, on 26 June 2012:

More than 95 per cent—

that is 95 per cent—

of TPV holders who were irregular maritime arrivals went on to get a permanent visa to live in Australia.

That is also reflected in the Houston report, so you cannot deny that. Once again, you need to study the evidence to make sure what you are saying actually occurred. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments